The Planned Obsolescence of America

By: Tom Chatham

Planned obsolescence is the act of designing something to become obsolete or self destruct at a certain point in the future for the purpose of replacing it with something else. We see this with many of the things we use today, especially appliances, home furnishings and technology. We are expected to upgrade at regular intervals to keep up with the times.

It was not always this way. In the past many things were built to last, in some cases for many generations. There are many homes in the world that were built centuries ago and are as functional today as the day they were built. There are appliances built almost a century ago that still do what they were designed to do. There are cars and tools that are decades old that still function as intended.

Many of the items that were built in the past were overbuilt and as a result maintain their function. They were built at a time when society demanded and expected the things they used to last a lifetime. Many items were built to be repaired many times in their functional life extending their usefulness and making them a good value to the owners. At some point, that mantra changed.

As society grew some people realized that they could sell many more items in the future if the products they built only lasted a short while and required replacement. During the 20th century industrialization ran head on into planned obsolescence. Things could be made cheaper and profit margins would expand.

This can be seen in society today in the many things we use. Granted, technology is constantly improving making some things less useful but many of the things we use still work as they always did. Homes used to be built of solid timbers making them last hundreds of years. Today the standard building materials are cheap imitations of that bygone era and modern construction is not expected to last for more than a generation as old buildings are torn down to make way for new and improved designs and tastes.

Society has been conditioned to want and expect change. How many times have you seen mobs outside a store waiting for the release of a new product. They wait to buy a replacement for things that still work fine but are not new enough. They tear down old buildings made of brick and mortar and replace it with one made of tin and particle board. They are on a constant quest to replace the old with the new.

There is a good case to be made for maintaining the old. Once it is built or purchased you do not need to spend money replacing it. The simple act of maintenance and repair will allow you to spend future monies on other necessities. There are some in society that live by the broken window theory. They believe that a broken window is good for society. If a shopkeeper gets a broken window it will force him to spend money to fix it. The window maker makes money. The window seller makes money. The window installer makes money. What they do not understand is that this creative destruction does not allow society to increase its wealth. It is like paying a man to dig holes and another to fill them. You have not created anything new in the end.

When a person buys land and builds a good home on it, if that home is left to the next generation, they can add to it and use their newly earned money to increase their wealth. Over successive generations, the family can increase their wealth because it is the collective wealth of several generations that has amassed. If every generation has to start from scratch, they will only get so far. This is how many of the wealthy families in the world do it. The death taxes that many people are forced to pay when a relative dies is just one of the many ways the system is rigged against the individual. It is a way for the system to force the idea of planned obsolescence on people. It forces people to relinquish the old and start anew.

Planned obsolescence is not restricted to mere products anymore. It now also applies to nation states as well. The U.S. Constitution was made to last for all time. It was designed to adjust to changing culture and needs in society. For many years those in society that have no admiration for the past have sought to change our basic principles of self determination and replace it with planned societies. More and more in the past few years we have heard the chorus of those that profess the constitution is outdated and irrelevant in today’s society. They want us to move into the future. They want us to embrace their vision of what should be.

They want us to demolish the old brick and mortar building that has sheltered us for so long and replace it with a cheap new imitation. Just as our monetary system has evolved into something cheap and disposable, they want to move us away from the overbuilt constitutional structure that can be repaired and reused indefinitely and build a new structure that is cheap and disposable for easy replacement as the whims of society changes.

America is headed for planned obsolescence by a shortsighted, uneducated and careless society that values the enjoyment of cheap trinkets and quick fixes rather than the solid value of time tested products and customs. America is about to be changed forever and just like the older durable products that made their way to the landfills, America may someday find itself covered with dirt to be remembered only in history books.

Just like with our cars, houses, appliances and money, our current form of government that has provided us with prosperity, freedom and liberty for so long is now being engineered for premature destruction. The question is, will the people embrace the new version or will they fight to keep the older model a little longer. Only time will tell.

Advertisements

Posted on March 17, 2015, in Commentary, Preparedness and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 14 Comments.

  1. The US Constitution is a failed disaster, not « made to last for all time » as Tom Chatham says above. The US ‘Constitution’ fetish resulting from US regime propaganda to its people, is a blindness unable to see that the US Constitution itself helped create the fascist, corrupt, war-mongering nation the US has become today, at war for 93% of its history, terrorising its own people & the world.

    As thoughtful Yanks themselves wrote in the 1780s, the US ‘Constitution’ would help destroy liberty, leading to a tyranny under corrupted judges working for oligarchs … It would have been better for Yanks to keep the Articles of Confederation.

    America’s oligarch families laugh at people they see as ‘idiots’ for praising the US Constitution, when oligarchs own the US judges & their supporting lawyer mafia – and shoot dead judges they don’t own, like US Federal Judge John Roll shot dead in Arizona in 2011 after ruling against Obama.

    The French Revolution of 1789 is more important, its basic principle – people in the streets, storming the Bastille and being revolutionary – more powerful than any piece of paper. There is a direct line from 1789 in France to the 15,000 people rioting outside the European Central Bank towers in Frankfurt this week.

    Any fetish for laws, documents etc … hands power to whatever cabal supervises the interpretation & implementation of that document. Also, the US Constitution failed to embody the right of secession, & horribly enshrined the evils of slavery, quickly abolished in France’s more thorough revolution.

    Note that the best place in the world to live today, despite flaws & a rocky pre-1945 past, is north-Western Continental Europe, home of the French Revolution … where people demonstrate & riot much more readily than in Yank USA. Here, governments & judges have more fear, precisely because of people in the streets.

    We are not a police state … almost no one is in jail here, 1 out of 1000 versus USA 1 out of 140 (!), the US having 25% of all world prisoners. Personal property & assets are in fact much safer from legal – judicial mafias in ‘socialist’ Europe. We have countries with zero poverty among legal residents, everyone has health care, better lives in general, & large numbers of ex-Yanks are quietly fleeing to live among us.

    And for Yanks who never seem to know, we have guns too … in the EU we have 100 million plus privately-owned civilian handguns, shotguns & rifles, 25 million in Germany, 18 million in France, etc. (It was only stupid Anglo Brits, with US-similar legalistic fetishes, who confiscated handguns in the 1990s.) – As US comedian Bill Maher jokes, US citizens focus on their guns because that is the ONLY right they have left (and maybe not for long).

    To be fair, no democracy in history has lasted more than 240 years … and from 1776-2016 the USA proved the rule again. Europe has had a rockier history over that time, but the USA has now sunk into near-hell, whereas we have had some decades of semi-paradise here … the danger in Europe now is that of following the Yank-Anglo model into cruelty, neglect of poor citizens, & debt slavery & oppression, as we see in the euro-currency debacle.

    But one thing is very clear – the US Constitution & a Constitution fetish, are not anything wonderful for freedom & justice. Very funny, actually … praising the tools which US fascist oligarchs employed to seize & maintain power.

    • Spoken like a true socialist. Bravo!

    • First, America is not a DEMOCRACY. She is a Constitutional Republic. There is nothing wrong with the US Constitution.

      What is wrong in America today is the people. The responsibility to enforce the US Constitution is the peoples as the Militia of the several states.

      Those who serve within our governments – state and federal – are FORBIDDEN to create a standing military and governmental professional law enforcement agencies. They are REQUIRED to use the Militias until the Congress declares War, if it does, otherwise they are needed as a military. Then those who serve within the militia, since they are already trained to use all the weapons of war move to military units. That is also WHEN all US presidents become the Commander in Chief. Until those things happen, they are NOT the Commander in Chief.

      It is the people themselves who are the responsible parties but they allowed the corrupt and treasonous who serve within our governments to “dumb them down”. Then they have been re-educated to not really know what our government is or how it operates..

      It sounds like you might need a refresher yourself.

      The Constitution of the United States of America is a compact made between the people of the different states. It created and defined the general (federal) government to deal with mostly foreign affairs and to see that the states traded fairly with each other. It divided it into the states with their republican form of government, and the federal government. They then divided it up further into three branches, each with separate duties that none of the other branches were /are allowed to do. It lists (enumerates) what the people who serve within our government are allowed to do, and how they are allowed to do the duties assigned.

      It is made up of a Preamble and the main body of the document. The Preamble is basically the summary of what the main body of the US Constitution says. Most of all, the Constitution of the United States of America and all that is in Pursuance thereof is the SUPREME LAW of this land. It is the law that all other laws, treaties, bills MUST conform to and follow to be lawful, legal here in the USA.

      Preamble:
      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      The Preamble to the US Constitution says who is responsible for doing certain things within our nation. Those things are to be done to “form a more perfect Union”.

      “We the People of the United States” are to:
      – “establish Justice”
      – “insure domestic Tranquility”
      – “provide for the common defence”
      – “promote the general Welfare”
      – “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”

      Notice that it is the people themselves that are tasked with those duties, no one who serves within our governments. I am going to assume you have the US Constitution to read. So I will let the framers and the forefathers explain it to you in their own words. Then, maybe a bit from the US Constitution itself.

      Thomas Jefferson: “Freedom is lost gradually from an uninterested, uninformed, and uninvolved people.”

      Alexander Hamilton: “There is no position which depends on clearer principles that that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”

      Patrick Henry: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.”

      Thomas Jefferson:“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

      George Washington: “The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”

      James Madison, Federalist 46: “… the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone”

      Thomas Jefferson: “The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”

      Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas: “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.”

      James Madison: “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.”

      Thomas Paine: “Government ought to be as much open to improvement as anything which appertains to man, instead of which it has been monopolized from age to age, by the most ignorant and vicious of the human race. Need we any other proof of their wretched management, than the excess of debts and taxes with which every nation groans, and the quarrels into which they have precipitated the world?”

      Alexander Hamilton: “We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”

      George Washington: “It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. “

      John Quincy Adams: “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.”

      Thomas Paine: “Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.”

      Alexander Hamilton: “Foreign influence is truly the Grecian horse to a republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its influence.”

      James Madison, Federalist 57, wrote that Congress “can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.”

      James Madison, Federalist No. 14: “In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any”.

      James Madison, Federalist 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

      Alexander Hamilton: “Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

      James Madison, Federalist 46: “The Foederal and State Governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes… They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone; and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expence of the other. Truth no less than decency requires, that the event in every case, should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.”

      James Madison: “The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.”

      James Madison, Federalist 39: “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” (It was established.)
      Thomas Jefferson: “When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself public property.”

      Benjamin Franklin: “It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth part.”

      John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States: “No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.”

      Article I, Section 8 giving Congress the power to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare.”
      The clear legal meaning of the phrase which was borrowed from the Articles of Confederation, meant, and still means, a small subset of duties each individual state considered appropriate to delegate to a separate authority. Roger Sherman, early American lawyer and politician, and a Founding Father of the United States, moved to have the phrase added to the Constitution, clarifies this (modernly) misunderstood clause. so it could be connected with the clause for laying taxes and duties. Sherman wanted to make it very clear that taxes could only be collected for the enumerated powers, that the “objects of the Union” are “few”; including to list them as “defence against foreign danger,” defense “against internal disputes & a resort to force,” and “regulating foreign commerce & drawing revenue from it” as the specified powers of the general (federal) government. This is consistent with Madison’s words from The Federalist and other sources, and also was the conclusive understanding that the other representatives held in the Philadelphia Convention and the state conventions afterwards.

      Madison wrote regarding the General Welfare Clause’s plain meaning when objecting to a 1792 bill which called for subsidized fisheries. The General Welfare Clause was cited as justification to pass such a bill. Madison responded: “I, sir, have always conceived – I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived, and it is still more fully known, and more material to observe that those who ratified the Constitution conceived –that this is not an indefinite Government, deriving its power from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers, but a limited Government tied down to the specified powers which explain and define the general terms.” He made it clear that the phrase reiterated that the specified powers were tied to “general terms.”

      James Madison in a letter written to a Virginia senator, Joseph Cabell, Madison made his views unambiguous: the interstate and foreign commerce clauses were not intended, nor construed, to vest in Congress equivalent powers when regulating domestic and foreign commerce: “I always foresaw difficulties might be started in relation to the interstate commerce power. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain it grew out of the abuse of the power of the importing states in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventative provision against injustice amongst the states themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged. And it will be safer to leave the power with this key to it, than to extend it all the qualities and incidental means belonging to the power over foreign commerce.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

      James Madison: “With respect to the words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

      Daniel Webster: “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered”.

      Thomas Jefferson: “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “The government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “The several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

      J. Reuben Clark spoke about the need for a solid support of the Constitution: “God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance shall run not to individuals, that is, to government officials, no matter how great or how small they may be. Under His plan our allegiance and the only allegiance we owe as citizens or denizens of the United States, runs to our inspired Constitution which God himself set up. So runs the oath of office of those who participate in government. A certain loyalty we do owe to the office which a man holds, but even here we owe just by reason of our citizenship, no loyalty to the man himself. In other countries it is to the individual that allegiance runs. This principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom. It is one of the great principles that distinguishes this “land of liberty” from other countries”.

      Thomas Jefferson: “It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights; that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go…. In questions of power, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

      James Madison: “But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort”

      Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps… The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

      John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802: “The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

      James Madison: “The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature … the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”

      George Washington: “The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.”

      James Madison: “In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

      James Madison: “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

      James Madison: “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.”

      James Madison warned: “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

      George Washington on factions in his farewell presidential speech: ‘The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty
      Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
      It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
      There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”

      John Adams: “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

      John Adams: “Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.”

      Richard Henry Lee, Senator, 1st Congress: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

      Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment; I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789: “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty… Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”

      Representative Jackson, first U.S. Congress, when it met and turned to defense measures in 1791: “The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a Militia, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords.”

      James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]: “The right of the people to keep and bear… arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…”

      Richard Henry Lee, “Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer”, 1788, at 169: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.”

      George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380: “…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

      George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.”

      Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87: “The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms”.

      Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.”

      William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America”: “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both”.

      Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836: “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

      Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”

      Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,… taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805 (Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386): “The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun.”

      Delegate Sedgwick, Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail: “…if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?” (Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97, 2d ed., 1888)

      Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined”

      Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788: “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people”.

      Thomas Jefferson: “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

      George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good”.

      Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of guns…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

      Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States…. Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America”

      Joseph Story, “Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States” (1840): “One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men”.

      James Burgh, “Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses” [London, 1774-1775]: “No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.”

      Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822): “For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.”

      Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846): ” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.”

      Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859): “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”

      Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878): “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm … is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”

      Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, “The Complete Jefferson”, p. 322: “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

      Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor: “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing”.

      Abraham Lincoln: “We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution”

      Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall: “The power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

      Abraham Lincoln: “Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of Temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes at the very principles upon which our government was founded.”

      Joseph Story, “Commentaries on the Constitution”: “Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings and blood of their ancestors; and capable, if wisely improved, and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the substantial blessings of life, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence…Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.”

      So what are the tools the people have to stop a police state/tyranny?

      The Militia is the people themselves, and ONLY the militias were to be used by both the state governments and the federal government when needed. They were both forbidden to create a governmental professional law enforcement. If America was attacked the Militia would hold them off since they are to be trained with ALL weapons of war until a military is called by the congress to war (from the Militia). That stops a police state, and a military takeover of our nation while still defending it.

      Accountability is again the Militias duty to enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution, but it is not the only recourse.

      “The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.

      “Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Misbehavior, “Good Behaviour” requirement)

      “The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”

      “Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”

      “The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”

      “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”

      “Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)

      This is long, but it is small bites. So I hope you better understand the problems we have in America is treason within our governments, a “dumbed down” down populace, etc but it is NOT the US Constitution that is waiting for us, the American people, to enforce her.

      • A bit long but very impressive. If I had taken the time earlier to give a longer response it might have went something like this.The U.S. was designed as a constitutional republic not a democracy because the founders knew that democracies are inherently unstable and ultimately self destruct over time. Unfortunately we have devolved into a democracy to our misfortune by not adhering to the constitution. Many of the problems we face are because of this non compliance. Many of the wars we have fought were largely due to the fact that we did not maintain gold and silver money as stipulated in the constitution and resorted to fiat currency which has allowed adventurism around the world. As Margret Thatcher once said, socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money. We will see how the socialist utopia in Europe fares after the FED no longer is able to prop up European banks.

  2. Reblogged this on Save And Protect Money.

  3. First, let me address the comment regarding your 25 million firearms. In response I would like to say that I am certain that we have approximately thatmany in my county in middle Tennessee alone. Secondly, you surrender at the slightest mention of hostilities with anyone, so your pitiful few eeapons are of no use to you.
    You talk somewhat like a socially public educated fool who swallowed every lie tol about my wonderful republic, so with that in mind, let me give you a little lesson as I have read the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.
    First, one begat the other, second, the Articles were nearly incorporated word for word into the Constitution (with a few minor alterations), and third, it just so happens to be the law of the land and a great many millions of us continue to regard it as such.
    Now, before I go off the deep end and insult your lineage I would like to say this…you can keep your Eurotrash mob rule democracy, we will continue to fight the good fight and keep our Constitutional Republic you no account cheese eating surrender monkey.
    Lastly, our Constitution does give us enumerated powers for secession and it is contained within the Declaration of Independence which reads: “when in the course of human events , it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the seperate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that which impel them to the seperation”. The second paragraph reads: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Librty, and the pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
    I think you’re just jealous because we no longer need nor want your unsolicited advice due to the fact that we have saved you nation twice in the same century from the same country which set itself upon you.

    Good day…surrender monkey

    • We are now in a position to answer more fully the question: what is the State? The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the “organization of the political means”; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory.4 For crime, at best, is sporadic and uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any time by the resistance of the victims. The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively “peaceful” the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society.5 Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation. The classic paradigm was a conquering tribe pausing in its time-honored method of looting and murdering a conquered tribe, to realize that the time-span of plunder would be longer and more secure, and the situation more pleasant, if the conquered tribe were allowed to live and produce, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting a steady annual tribute.6 One method of the birth of a State may be illustrated as follows: in the hills of southern “Ruritania,” a bandit group manages to obtain physical control over the territory, and finally the bandit chieftain proclaims himself “King of the sovereign and independent government of South Ruritania”; and, if he and his men have the force to maintain this rule for a while, lo and behold! a new State has joined the “family of nations,” and the former bandit leaders have been transformed into the lawful nobility of the realm.

  4. The main problem with both Europe and America (and any other nation with a central government) is that the ‘State’ is inherently immoral and attracts the worst of society. If we really wanted freedom and prosperity we would teach ourselves and our children to govern themselves locally and to be on guard against those who would teach that we should have a central authority to whom is given the monopoly on the use of violence.

    http://mises.org/library/anatomy-state

  1. Pingback: The Planned Obsolescence of America | Timber Exec

  2. Pingback: The Planned Obsolescence of America | ZombieMarkets

  3. Pingback: The Planned Obsolescence of America | DailyDeceit

  4. Pingback: The Planned Obsolescence of America | DYSTOPIA DISPATCH

  5. Pingback: The Planned Obsolescence of America | gold is money

  6. Pingback: The Planned Obsolescence of America | Towards Emancipation

%d bloggers like this: